Summary
finding no error in district court's holding that compassionate release motion was not a viable substitute for a timely filed 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion
Summary of this case from United States v. BustillosOpinion
21-50451
06-13-2022
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Marquardt, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:16-CR-59-1
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam. [*]
Timothy Marquardt, federal prisoner # 70526-380, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. We review the denial, which the district court based upon Marquardt's failure to show extraordinary and compelling reasons, for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).
Insofar as Marquardt raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, he fails to show that the district court erred as a matter of law by holding that the § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion was not a viable substitute for a timely filed 28 U.S.C § 2255 motion. See id. Marquardt's claim invoking Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), is insufficiently briefed to warrant our consideration. See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010). We do not address any argument regarding the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022).
AFFIRMED.
[*] Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.